If you want to do something practical about the travesty of Al Gore's Nobel, go to

Climate Audit | Oct 13th 2007 | plenipotentiary

[plenipotentiary]

THIS IS IMPORTANT

If you want to do something practical about the travesty of Al Gore's Nobel, go to A Little Secret

Give generously. Here is a man who single handedly is showing that the "Global Warming" scam is based on a tissue of lies.

Why has no-one updated the data for the last 25 years? (c'mon, you know the answer)

Also see: Bring the Proxies Up to Date!!, and Rocky Mountain High #2

There is hope, but only if you act now.

[NewRomeTacitus]

We’re on the far end of a cyclical ice age.

But when it comes to Al Gore the story is me puttin’ him into the wall.

[XavierXray]

Go! Donate! Accomplish nothing...

[Neville72]

Jeff Jacoby had a great explanation as to why the Nobel “Peace” Prize has become such a joke as of late. Unlike all of the other Nobel Laureates,who are selected by a panel of Swedish scientists and scholars, the Peace prize recipient is selected by Norwegian politicians usually with an axe to grind.

Jacoby of the Boston Globe:

“In all seriousness, it is worth nothing an important difference between the “peace” prize and the other Nobel prizes. The Swedish scholars and scientists who make up the committees that award the science, literature, and economics prizes routinely choose honorees whose greatest work was done years, even decades, earlier.

For instance, Max Planck’s revolutionary paper on quantum theory was published in 1900; he received the Nobel Prize for it in 1918. Albert Einstein’s discovery of the photoelectric effect — a 1905 achivement — earned him the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921. James Watson and Francis Crick figured out the structure of DNA in 1953; they didn’t receive the Nobel Prize in medicine (with Maurice Williams) until 1962. The 1924 Nobel in medicine went to Willem Einthoven for discovering the mechanism of the electrocardiogram. He had done the work between 1895 and 1905.

This is why recipients of the Swedish Nobels are so often very old. Doris Lessing, this year’s literature laureate, is 88. Two years ago, Thomas Schelling — then 84 — was a co-recipient of the economics prize for work he had done in 1960. As a rule, a scientist, author, or economist receives a Nobel Prize only after his work has been sifted and weighed and put to the test of time. Its importance has been established, often through years of peer review. As a result, the science, literature, and economics Nobels rarely end up looking foolish or naive.

By contrast, the Norwegian committee entrusted with awarding the peace prize comprises politicians, not scholars. Like politicians everywhere, the peace prize committee tends to be more interested in what the headlines will say today than in what historians will believe 20 — or 100 — years from now. And unlike their Swedish counterparts, the Norwegians often intend their choice to have a political impact. When they gave the prize to Jimmy Carter in 2002, the committee chairman emphasized that it was intended to be “a kick in the leg” of the Bush administration. This year’s prize to Al Gore speaks for itself.

In short, the five Swedish Nobels are almost always rewards for true achievement. The one Norwegian Nobel too often smacks of an agenda. Maybe the peace laureates would be less risible if they were chosen in Stockholm too.”

[XavierXray]

"the Peace prize recipient is selected by Norwegian politicians usually with an axe to grind." MJOES, Ole Danbolt, b. 1939. Professor Dr.med, University of Tromsoe. President of University of Tromsoe, 1989-95. Various political offices, Christian People's Party (conservative Christian party with 100% of the party members in the "Friends of U.S.A" and "Friends of Israel" groups) FURRE, Berge Ragnar, b. 1937. Historian, Professor of Theology, University of Oslo. Politician back in the 70's (Center left oriented SV) YTTERHORN, Inger-Marie, b. 1941. Senior political adviser to the Progress Party's parliamentary group. (FRP is the most conservative party in Norway) RÅNBECK, Sissel Marie, b. 1950. Deputy Director, Directorate for Cultural Heritage (Riksantikvaren). Chairman Social Democratic Youth (AUF) 1975-1977. Member of the Storting 1977-1993. Cabinet Minister 1979- FIVE, Kaci Kullmann, b. 1951. Self employed Advisor Public Affairs. Chairman of the Young Conservatives, 1977-79. Member of the Storting, 1981-97. Cabinet Minister for Trade, Shipping and European Affairs, 1989-90. Chairman of the Conservative Party, 1991-94. Member of the Committee since 2003. That means that three out of five are Conservatives with STRONG ties to the US. A clear indicator that the statement is FALSE. Ole Danbolt Mjoes, chairman of the peace committee, was asked whether the award could be seen as criticism of the Bush administration, which did not subscribe to the Kyoto treaty to cap greenhouse gases. He replied that the Nobel was not meant to be a œkick in the leg to anyoneâ the Norwegian expression for kick in the teeth. We would encourage all countries, including the big countries, and challenge them to think again and to say what they can do to conquer global warming,Dr. Mjoes said in Oslo. Now the funny thing here is that there seems to be a clear lack of research done in some parts. The Swedish panels are made up of scholars because Nobel stated in his will that they had to be. Not only that but they must also be employed by the universities (this rule has been slightly altered) themselves. The Norwegian Nobel Committee however got a different set of rules, Jacoby conveniently missed that part perhaps? The humor reaches a pinnacle when you realize that the Swedes have it easy, Medicine, Chemistry, Literature... How can they NOT pick a Doctor, Chemist and Author for the respective awards? While the Norwegian committee has the term "peace" and Peace can be accomplished in many ways. Of course in the end it does not matter if some minority groups call the price a travesty for the global community does not. They see and understand the reasons that the IPCC and Gore won and in the future they will take even more notice of what they have to say. No, if Norwegian politicians wanted to show that they have an axe to grind they would simply withdraw from Kabul and leave the capitol of Afghanistan in someone else's care. Petty complaints like these only serve to damage the friendship between two allies and friends in a time when they are equally dependent on each other.

[bill1952]

you are a cast iron kook.

We are in no way “dependent” on you, and you are barely friends at all,

I personally do not care if your troops leave today, right now.

"Petty complaints like these only serve to damage the friendship between two allies and friends in a time when they are equally dependent on each other."

Our complaints are not “petty” your so called “award” is, and we don’t need it, it’s implications, or your admonishments.

In short, go to Hell.

[Archon of the East]

All well and good but that doesn't explain their idiotic choices as of late. The award should be earned by doing real work and not merely pushing the means to a tax and cap soviet style global initiative. The fact that its a peace prize does not justify the use of junk science to promote such an obvious political issue.

I have no ax to grind with Norway, I have great respect for them. But this award is a slap in the face to anyone who follows and adheres to pure scientific study.

[A_Tradition_Continues]

The fact that its a peace prize does not justify the use of junk science to promote such an obvious political issue.

You've got to figure that any organization that awards Jimmuh Carter any type of award is really screwed up.

[XavierXray]

(@Archon of the East)
That many find it hard to see how the last three awards can have anything to do with peace is understandable but what they are trying to do is to show people that peace is achieved trough a wide range of actions.
I personally do not see this as an award for the science but the awareness that is a consequence of their work.
It is not why the changes are happening but that they are happening that is the key point, when we are aware of that we can also predict what changes that will occur and avoid conflicts that will happen.
Water and farmland are two examples as they are directly linked to survival and people are often willing to die while fighting for them if it means that their family will get access to it and survive.

On the flip side I myself see the changes as a good reason to concentrate scientific research towards new energy sources.

Creating more energy at a lower cost is something that will encourage economic growth and reduce pollution and even IF pollution is not the cause of Global Warming it's still a great cause of concern.
The United States is vital in all of these things and thats the only message that might be hidden with the award.

---

Bill1952: “We are in no way “dependent” on you, and you are barely friends at all”

Hahaha, thanks for the great laugh.
You obviously have no idea about who we are and I think that is just as well.
(one word: NATO)

[fish hawk]

The Nobel lost all credibility when they gave it to Jimmah Carter. From then on, it is nothing.

[steelyourfaith]

bttt

[Old Professer]

I’ve never heard of this guy nor have I ever known that there was a general reluctance after being questioned on this point, by the very researchers on whose reports so much of this argument rests in the recent past.

But I have often made the same comment when the subject of the historical data came up

Why can’t we take core samples now and compare the 20+ years of data we would get to what is the foundation for the theory itself and the political and economic responses we’re being rushed to undertake.

Not just bristlecones but ice cores themselves.

The Arctic sea stands apart since we were just informed that the extent of breakup is greatly influenced by local surface winds which is a component of weather, not climate.

Unfortunately, the issue is settled while the supporting science is coming under greater and more focused attack only to be met by a brick wall of dismissal.

[Old Professer]

And to think that I thought you were a serious student of this subject.

[Grizzled Bear]

Paragraphs are your friend.

[Old Professer]

[Grizzled Bear]

You obviously have no idea about who we are and I think that is just as well.
(one word: NATO)

---

There are about 193 sovereign nations. That means there are 193 separate entities out there each looking after their own interests. That's what a sovereign nation is supposed to do. If they fail to do this they will soon cease to exist.

Five nations may be in agreement on one issue one day and the next day all can be in total conflict concerning another issue. This is something most Americans, particularly liberals, cannot seem to grasp about foreign policy.

Even your very best friend will never agree with you about everything. Why should your false friends?

[bill1952]

Like your former post; meaningless drivel.

I no longer work in Brussels, but thanks for the also meaningless one word.

[Archon of the East]

While I appreciate there are different ways to achieve peace compromise using what essentially is a lie to “speak to a lager truth" is foolish and dishonest. I suspect you will disagree somewhat about my definitive conclusion about the nonsense that is Global warming, strike that, Climate change or whatever terminology the leftists as part and parcel of their MO are now calling it. See Communist to Liberal to Progressive to Socialist for understanding of language play. Never the less the awareness for peace they seek to achieve through such a means disqualifies the award of any legitimacy in my view. It is so typical of the global left treating the people like idiots looking down their collective noses at them all the while saying how much they care for them.

As far as looking for more efficient energy sources, absolutely I'm in favor of that. A cost effective alternative is always good and if it comes available a good helping of Capitalist greed will certainly allow for a competitive market and benefit all. Greed isn't all bad you know it is the driving source behind progress, real progress. You cant take human nature out of the equation know matter what elites in Brussels think.

Anyway, getting off track, Just want to say something about peace and the Prize. Peace is a wonderful thing to strive for but not at the price of servitude be it physical or political. The Nobel prize has come to symbolize peace but without freedom, liberty or truth. Peace through tyranny is not peace at all. Well my FRiend not without a fight I pray.

[XavierXray]

Being the biggest, strongest and thinking that one is the best is all well and good but not if you’re alone.
We, your allies, also pay the price of terror and back in the day we also payed the price to liberate ourselves from the Germans...
It just seems to me that you guys want our friendship when we offer our elite soldiers (specialists in barren and mountain terrain....like what you find in Afghanistan) but not when you have to give something in return.

Now feel free to believe that money will save you all, that you can win everything alone and that you don’t need anyone.
Just remember me when you find out you that it wasn’t really that easy....

Our friendships have given us relative peace for fifty years and we have all grown stronger thanks to it... ignore it if you wish but it’s still the truth and personally I have no problem with you guys but I have a hard time figuring out why you have such a big problem with us.

[Archon of the East]

I do have a problem with leftist elites wherever they are be it in Brussels or Hollywood. I have a bigger problem with an award that claims to have some integrity when in fact it does not. You can say what you want about AGW but the evidence is slim at best. To mislead the people about it with an award that is suppose to have some integrity is a slap in the face to all those who care about truth.

I in no way believe we should go it alone or that we don't need friends and allies but I will not compromise truth for that sake. Live Free or Die has become a cliche but with profound meaning. I only wish John Locke won the battle in Europe and not Rousseau, maybe we wouldn't be the biggest and strongest right now.

Don't confuse criticism with dislike. I have great respect for much of Europe and it's people but am disgusted at their seemingly leftist bent. Lets not forget it is much of Europe that has left US and not necessarily we who left them.